Author
Topic: Faking the moon landings (Read 28859 times)

Because of the way you post I'll only give you a tidbit of the laundry list you provide. When discussing the sand, again I have watched the video and the blurry images you present and of the video, there is no proof that the sand moved higher than the boots, perhaps it is your zeal to prove something that lets you see events that ae not present.However, let me ask you a gravitational question, IF as you belief, but not proven, that the regolith goes higher than the boots, why is this proof that the sequence was shot on Earth. Isn't gravity universal? No sand would go higher than the boots unless it has been given extra energy to do so the formula for distance

and I chose that particular site as, you are a dummy or troll as Jay has indicated.Fine material will not go higher that the boots unless there is that little bit of energy added.

Now as to my being:

"unheard of for a person defending NASA to resort to lying, wouldn’t it?" Of course it would be not unheard-of for an HB to tell lies, the history is ripe with HB's lies.

"It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong, even when it is plainly obvious, which to me, suggest stubbornness or a lack of intelligence, but when we see seemingly educated adults displaying such behaviour, there must be more to it. It has to be indoctrination, although there will be some that stand to make financial gain by defending NASA’s lies, and I am certain there is at least two of these people on these forums."

I have admitted many times concerning the errors I have made, unfortunately, you haven't. Search the forum and you will sell my admissions. Indoctrination? that is rich, why don't you use a more proper term educated and versed in the Apollo program, by reading the literature. Financial gain by defending.. That is rich NASA doesn't pay anyone to stand and knock down the BS you throw out.

Further you really need to spend some time in a physics book, this is high school level. The regolith will depart the wheels with whatever the force is predominant. If ANGULAR force is greater then the dust will travel in an arc, if the lateral force is greater then the path will be parabolic. You cherry pick images, as thee are many that show parabolic paths. Now who is lying?

I agree with Jay you are a troll, plain and simple.

Logged

Truth needs no defense. Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.Eugene Cernan

Examining a tiny piece of rock might indicate that it didn’t come from earth and it may even be somehow possible to determine with some degree of accuracy that it probably originated from the moon, but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions. NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? You've decided the samples are not of lunar origin, therefore you aren't willing to look at any evidence that they might be. You're not trying to have any kind of rational discussion, you're just reinforcing your own beliefs.

Quote

The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.

Not true. And a small amount of research would have turned up plenty of reports of tracking of various missions. The fact that you are either too lazy, or too afraid (in case it disproves your belief) to properly research the information, doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Quote

Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence can attest to tracking any of the Apollo missions on their journey’s to and from the moon

ditto...

Quote

so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret? If you think this is a minor point, then you haven’t thought it through, as this third party evidence, along with the lost telemetry data and technology would surely have gone a long way in silencing us conspiracy nuts.

There were no "conspiracy nuts" (glad it's yourself using the phrase) at the time of the Apollo missions, so there was no goal of "silencing" them. Also, as already pointed out, and again showing your lack of research, the information wasn't secret, and no telemetry data or technology was "lost". (Yes, some tapes were overwritten, but the data on them had already been processed and copied to other forms.)

Quote

What about the rover and this rooster tail thing? As I understand it, the alleged lunar dust, thrown from the wheels of the rover forms an arc, resembling a rooster tail, as oppose to a parabolic arc, which we would see on earth. Apparently, the air resistance on earth is the reason for the parabolic arc, but as there is no air on the moon, the alleged dust falls straight back down. What?! Surely the opposite would be true, as with no air resistance, the alleged dust would be allowed to follow its trajectory and therefore form a perfect parabolic arc? Or am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing a basic understanding of physics, and also an understanding of colloquial English use of phrases such as "rooster tail" in describing said basic physics.

Quote

As I’ve said on numerous occasions, there is only one source of evidence available that could possibly prove it one way or another, and that is the video evidence, and sadly for you, it all points to a hoax. Kubrick would never have openly admitted to his involvement in the fraud, but they chose to end his life anyway, as he was about to blow the lid on the vile and deviant corruption within our governments and secret societies, of which he was exposed to. Who knows what was in those twenty minutes that he refused to cut from his last film, a couple of days before he was murdered?

Can I ask what brand of tinfoil you prefer for your headgear??

I do love your opening statement though :

Quote

It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong, even when it is plainly obvious, which to me, suggest stubbornness or a lack of intelligence...

Don't you see any irony in writing something like that?

Logged

Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.

How blind are you? Have you even seen one of the launches, you know, the ones tracked from the ground until they disappeared?

No proof they made it into orbit? Seriously? You mean apart from large numbers of photographs taken in Earth orbit prior to TLI?

Not to mention the many photographs of Earth, and 16mm, taken immediately after TLI, all of which show an exact correspondence with the various weather satellites in orbit at the time, like this montage of Apollo 11 images taken in orbit:

Quote

Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence can attest to tracking any of the Apollo missions on their journey’s to and from the moon, so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret? If you think this is a minor point, then you haven’t thought it through, as this third party evidence, along with the lost telemetry data and technology would surely have gone a long way in silencing us conspiracy nuts.

As I’ve said on numerous occasions, there is only one source of evidence available that could possibly prove it one way or another, and that is the video evidence, and sadly for you, it all points to a hoax.

Unfortunately for you the video (both 16mm and live TV) all point to the landings being genuine, no matter on how many occasions you say otherwise.

The evidence is in the clip, for anyone that can be bothered to analyse it.

Still avoiding the understanding that looking at a cloud of dust doesn't equate to looking at a single object.

Quote

The only two possibilities are, that either I’m making it up or you have impaired vision,

Or you are wrong. Explain why you keep failing to include that possibility.

Quote

It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong

Even sadder when people won't even consider it when presenting their conclusions.

Quote

Explain to a group of people that any object, regardless of size or weight will fall at the same speed in a vacuum and show them the jump salute with instructions on how to analyse the video, and they will all come to the same conclusion as I did.

Of course, because your 'analysis' is based on a faulty premise. Typical HB argument: take a true simple statement, then conclude that any apparent deviation from it is proof of something nefarious rather than an example of how the complexity of reality sometimes makes for some apparently anomalous observations.

Quote

Explain to people how to determine the size, the earth would look from a given distance, and then ask them to compare their findings to what we see on Apollo 11’s alleged transit to the moon, and again, they will also come to the same conclusion as I did.

Nope. Already answered that one. With information about the FOV of the camera and the distance of the Earth and it looks exactly right. You fail to put up any calculation to prove your point.

Quote

When I presented my evidence, I failed to take into account, the difference in specs between my video camera and the Apollo 11 on-board camera, but if I had, then the results would be even more damning.

The mere fact you considered your video camera to have any relevance to the problem at all is pretty damning for your 'analysis' (put in inverted commas because nothing you have done bears the slightest resemblance to actual analysis).

Quote

I challenge you to give me just one piece of solid proof that the moon landings were genuine.

Really not how this works, and in any case you have already pre-emptively dismissed any and all proof that can be offered as either fake (from NASA) or fake (from lying people supporting the NASA version of events).

Quote

How about the reflectors? We don’t need a reflector to bounce a laser off the moon.

No, but you get a stronger signal if you do use a reflector.

Quote

but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions.

That creaking sound must be those goalposts shifting again.

Quote

NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.

Repeating that assertion won't make it true.

Quote

The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.

There is no proof of any of your alternatives either, so no basis on which to conclude fakery.

Quote

Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence

There we go again. Either no evidence or NASA-influenced evidence.

Quote

so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret?

There is a difference between 'kept secret' and 'I haven't seen it'. The data were published before every mission.

Quote

Kubrick would never have openly admitted to his involvement in the fraud, but they chose to end his life anyway

as he was about to blow the lid on the vile and deviant corruption within our governments and secret societies, of which he was exposed to.

Since, apparently, you know a lot about this corruption, how would killing Kubrick help keep the lid on it? Or are you expecting a death squad visit some time soon?

Logged

"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!" - Dara O'Briain

My Gods, they never stop with the Kubrick thing. Yes, there's the obvious and frankly stupid "no one tracked the missions" error, but come on! They won't even do the work to fit directing Apollo missions into Kubrick's known schedule for the time to realize that it doesn't work. Much less any of the other reasons Kubrick would have been a terrible choice.

Logged

"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity." --Henry Louis Gates

Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area. They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low. Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

I know this is post necromancy and I should not feed the troll, but this is so funny I can't resist responding.

Gravity is measured in geophysics in milligals. Incidentally this is an SI unit, none has been defined as yet. A standard gravity would be 980.665 gal, or 980665 millgals.

Los Alamos indeed lies over a gravity low of 260 milligals. Not only does this very large anomaly extend north into Colorado, it is clearly related to geological structure. Plus of course a low 260 milligals is all of 0.0265% less than a standard gravity, and detectable only with sensitive instruments.

My Gods, they never stop with the Kubrick thing. Yes, there's the obvious and frankly stupid "no one tracked the missions" error, but come on! They won't even do the work to fit directing Apollo missions into Kubrick's known schedule for the time to realize that it doesn't work. Much less any of the other reasons Kubrick would have been a terrible choice.

I have been looking into that for some time. If you take into account how long 2001 a space odyssey took to make, and multiply that by all the live footage from the Apollo missions, it becomes pretty clear he did not have enough time.

This is not even taking into account the tens of thousands of photos, and 16mm footage, from different locations.

The sand above his boot had to be propelled upwards at a higher velocity than the actor, and the finer sand disperses and disappears on the way down before it reaches the ground. How could that happen if it were filmed in a vacuum? The only two possibilities are, that either I’m making it up or you have impaired vision, as it would be unheard of for a person defending NASA to resort to lying, wouldn’t it?

I see you have little to no grasp of basic physics or anatomy. Acceleration equals Force divided by Mass, or A=F/M. When you jump flat-footed, you don't actually jump with your foot flat. Your heel comes up and you jump off of the balls of your feet with a little extra push from the toes. As you do this, your heel lifts completely just before the rest of your foot does. (https://www.thehoopsgeek.com/the-physics-of-the-vertical-jump/) This is why any fine evenly distributed particles you may be standing in will rise from the heel first. Now, back to the equation. Obviously, from the BASIC physics involved, the mass of the fine particles will be much less than the mass of a human resulting in greater acceleration. However, the force applied to the fine particles will not be equal to the total force provided to the jumper. This is because the heel lift, that starts the jump AND the particulate acceleration, is just the initial lifting force. Also, the force applied to the particles is only that which is contributed by the friction of the jumper's feet/shoes/boots, as there is no other avenue to impart it. The final push off the balls and toes is yet to come. So, two things happen. The particulates are accelerated prior to the completion of the jump force AND the forces upon the particulates and the jumper are exponentially different.

Conclusion: The physics involved, regarding the relative heights reached by the particulates and the jumper, is the result of a complex and uneven exertion of forces. Therefor, there can be no expectation of their relative heights gleamed purely from photography, and your claim for there being only two possibilities is utterly ignorant.

As far as dispersion goes, such dust in a vacuum would naturally spread out, as there is no air to slow and clump it into a cloud. Your pictures of the LRV and the dune buggy actually prove this. At the bottom of the LRV's rooster tail, the dust is spreading out and can be seen through easily. As for the dune buggy, the dust is clouding up considerably more at the bottom of its rooster tail than it does in its arc, due to its reduced speed and further billowing caused by the atmosphere.

Note: Edited for punctuation and reworded "with the relative heights" in my conclusion to read better.

My Gods, they never stop with the Kubrick thing. Yes, there's the obvious and frankly stupid "no one tracked the missions" error, but come on! They won't even do the work to fit directing Apollo missions into Kubrick's known schedule for the time to realize that it doesn't work. Much less any of the other reasons Kubrick would have been a terrible choice.

I have been looking into that for some time. If you take into account how long 2001 a space odyssey took to make, and multiply that by all the live footage from the Apollo missions, it becomes pretty clear he did not have enough time.

This is not even taking into account the tens of thousands of photos, and 16mm footage, from different locations.

Would like to see your calculations!

I haven't bothered with calculations, honestly. It's just that, you know, he made A Clockwork Orange in the middle of Apollo.

Logged

"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity." --Henry Louis Gates

A level set: Following your lead, I reject any and all of the 'evidence' you use or have used, referenced. quoted, copied, or hinted at to attempt to prove a hoax. I will only accept conclusions you come up with independent of all current and past hoax claims this means anything and everything from anyone else (as mentioned, past and present).

You must present new arguments using your own calculations (yes, you MUST provide math results for anything you present - yours and yours alone - you cannot quote, reference or otherwise utilize anything from any other hoax supporter).

If you choose to ignore or dismiss this post, I will assume you have no response and are unable to provide any new arguments/'evidence' and therefore, to me, your claims, as of this post, are null and void until you present new and independent arguments complete with all of the data and the calculations used to derive that data and your conclusions.

Logged

Robert Clark - CISSP, MISM, MCSE and some other alphabet certifications. I am moving to Theory ... everything works in Theory"Everybody remember where we parked." James Tiberius Kirk, Captain, U.S.S. Enterprise

The lunar samples? In short, we only have NASA’s word, and when I say we, I include the geologists. Now here’s a novel idea, why not as well as a geologist being able to request a sample for delivery, he or she could also have a “pick up in store” option where they could make an appointment and browse through those hundreds of kilos of moon soil and rocks and be allowed to choose which specimen they would like their sample taken from, and then watch, while they cut them a slice.

Maybe that could be a Thing...if geologists had the money to fly around the world and spend a few days in Houston browsing through hundreds of samples.

It's just a darn site cheaper to browse the catalog in the comfort of their own office and have the sample sent through. Remember, the catalog tells the scientist the exact type of rock in each sample, with details about its uniqueness. Go to https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/ and pick a few samples at random. You never know, you might learn a bit about how each sample is a little different. And of course, if you bothered to learn a bit about science you might understand why a scientist might want one particular sample out of all those listed, rather than any other. Then, having asked for exactly that sample, she'd very quickly know whether she'd been given a piece of that specific sample as opposed to something from one of the others.

Why do you suggest your "pick up in store" option? Are you thinking of setting up a charter company to fly those cashed-up eggheads?

Quote

Examining a tiny piece of rock might indicate that it didn’t come from earth and it may even be somehow possible to determine with some degree of accuracy that it probably originated from the moon...

OMG, you finally got there. You actually accepted the idea that the Apollo rocks could have come from the Moon. Well done!

I take it then you accept the scientific consensus that these rocks, while similar to Earth rocks, also have distinct chemical differences which make terrestrial origin impossible.

Quote

...but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions.

To some extent I think you'll find scientists couldn't really care less how NASA came into possession of these rocks which you say "...probably originated from the moon..." They just want to do some good sciencey lovin' on their sample - to find out stuff about the geological history of the Moon, or something about the solar wind, or whatever.

But regardless of whether the scientists care or not how the rocks came to be on the Earth, the fact remains these Moon rocks are on the Earth. So if you accept they're Moon rocks, you now have to explain how ~380 kilograms of the stuff of the Moon is now on Earth, in a way that doesn't involve them flying through the Earth's atmosphere as meteorites.

Go on, take your time. See if you can do it without invoking the TARDIS.

Quote

NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.

You what? So after just accepting the Apollo rocks "...probably originated from the moon..." you now say they don't exist? What are they, Schroedinger's rocks? They simultaneously came from the Moon and don't exist?

I think a little more explanation might be needed here. Like, a lot little more.

Quote

Russia would have blabbed? Even if the US and the Soviets weren’t in cahoots at the time, how would they go about proving it? They couldn’t track the Apollo missions, so the best they could do was listen in on radio transmissions coming from the direction of the moon, when they were lucky enough to be in site of the moon during a transmission. Those transmissions wouldn’t have given the Russians any cause for concern, as they did it themselves, during the Zond 5/6 missions, before the alleged Apollo 8 mission took place. A Russian voice was picked up coming from the crafts, giving the impression that the flights were manned, when it was actually a tape recording. The Zond 5 transmission supposedly had NASA flapping for a short while, thinking they’d been beaten to yet another milestone in manned space exploration.

LOL! Oh, stop it! Now we have Schroedinger's Cold War. The USSR was simultaneously "in cahoots" with the USA and causing a flap for NASA.

Quote

The Russians knew it was faked because they knew it couldn’t be done, but to accuse the US of fraud, without proof would be seen as sour grapes to the rest of the deluded world, and anyhow it was best to bite their tongue in the knowledge that they and others would now have a free licence to fake the shit out of space, and that cheap wheat sure did come in handy. It seems strange that one nation would help feed another nation with whom they were in conflict with, as wouldn’t it make more sense to help starve them?

"Da, comrade, we know that going to the Moon is impossible, we just don't know how to prove it." Do you seriously think an argument like that would work, like, anywhere?

Let me just spell this out in case I'm going too fast: if the Soviets knew that going to the Moon was impossible, all they needed to do was explain to the rest of the world what they knew. That way, the rest of the world would know that going to the Moon was impossible, meaning that the Americans going to the Moon must be impossible, meaning the Americans must be faking it. It would be a propaganda coup of the first order.

Oh, and by the way, why was it impossible for the Apollo spacecraft to go to the Moon? I forget whether you ever actually got around to explaining that.

It’s not a case of me being puzzled by the world, but rather, my perception of the world is merely different to what you perceive it to be. What does puzzle me however is why some people believe that governments and large organisations such as NASA would be incapable of lying.

Quote from: JayUtah

Your argument is that for most things regarding Apollo we just have to take NASA's word for it. That's not true. There are (and were in the 1960s) plenty of people who knew a lot about space and space travel who didn't get it from NASA and can't be fooled by NASA if NASA is wrong. Those people have to be accounted for in your theory

Wind forward to recent years and the heads of every so called space agency in the world know that Apollo was a hoax, along with all other alleged manned space flight, as they are all in on the act. This is not my own theory, as you state, but a very likely fact, given the obvious fakery we see on board the ISS, because if they are faking space now, then they were definitely faking it fifty years ago. We see clear evidence of wire harnesses, mad looking hair, permed into place and pixelating objects and foregrounds, while the background stays intact. This fakery isn’t up for argument, as it is plainly obvious, so the way I see it, your only defence can be to explain why they need to fake the footage if they are really in space.

Quote from: cambo

As for tangled wires, maybe the scenes you mention, only had one man on wires, or if the men stayed approximately the same distance apart...

Quote from: JayUtah

This is why it's important for you to have seen more than just the odd YouTube clip of astronauts on the lunar surface. You're proposing stuff that would potentially work for a few seconds, or maybe a minute or two. But not for the lengthy shots that are in the unedited source material

Why would any of the footage be impossible to fake with a combination of wire rigs, helium balloons and framerate editing? Don’t forget, they only needed support for those high skips and jumps, where the fall could be measurable. The bulk of the footage doesn’t require wires, just crank up the speed and it becomes clear that they are on a movie set.

Quote from: cambo

...it would be an easy task to suspend both of them

Quote from: JayUtah

You've obviously never staged Peter Pan with a flyrig. Multiple actors on wires "live" on a stage with two dimensions of travel is not possible with theatrical flyrigs today. I'm certified by Foy to operate multiaxis flyrigs and I've designed and built my own single-axis flyrig. Since Foy's technology is proprietary, an NDA prevents me from describing it in detail. But safe to say it works on a gantry principle that can't accommodate more than a single flier without drastically reducing his field of travel. And that's state of the art. So please describe a rig that could do what you say

First of all, we are talking a multibillion dollar organisation, not some two-bit “live” stage production. I would imagine a rotating rail underneath the main rig would suffice in order to allow the actors to skip and jump around each other, but I’ve yet to find any footage of the actors crossing paths multiple times, that would require both actors to be suspended.

Quote from: cambo

Helium balloons would be a good solution.....

Quote from: JayUtah

That's how they did it for From the Earth to the Moon. I worked on a film with the grip company that did those effects. And no, it's not just handwavingly easy.

They didn’t do it because it was easy, but because it was hard

Quote from: cambo

So in what field is your expertise…..

Quote from: JayUtah

Aerospace engineering, along with film and theater as side businesses. Please tell me what your training and experience is in aerospace engineering. Please tell me what your training and experience is in professional film and theater. You're making claims along those lines that would ordinarily be probative only if they came from someone with suitable expertise, to be able to give his informed judgment regarding what is easy, hard, possible, or impossible in those fields

There are people with better qualifications than you, who have fell foul to NASA’s lies. The qualifications you are so proud of are the very thing preventing you from viewing the evidence with an open mind. I can’t believe we are arguing over how they managed to suspend the actors when the video fakery as a whole is so insanely obvious, and I do believe some of you when you say you can’t see it, but that’s mind control for you.

Knowledge is power, but that doesn’t apply to you, as the people running the world have the real knowledge, which gives them the power to control the rest of us, by giving us a false knowledge, which in turn, gives us a false understanding of the world we live in. Therefore, the less knowledge we have, to a certain extent, the more open our minds are, and since I have less of this alleged scientific knowledge than you, it gives me power over the likes of you, as I am free to think outside the box, in which, you will be forever locked inside.

Quote from: cambo

It’s already been proven that the footage you got your earth images from, was not shot on the outward journey to the moon…..

Quote from: JayUtah

No, it hasn't been proven. You've just bought Sibrel's line uncritically and are uninterested in why his attempt at proof fails. Then you're simply begging the question of your belief to insist that any rebuttal against it must somehow be false. That's as circular as reasoning can get

Sibrel was wrong in his assumption that the trickery was performed while in LEO, but rather on board a plane, as we never see the alleged astronauts speaking, because to have live audio would mean hearing the planes engines. The triple glazing theory doesn’t come close to debunking what we see in the footage. There are large discrepancies in the views of the windows when the camera is zoomed out, depending on which transmission we are viewing, and the size of the earth is only a fraction of the size it should be from the distances alleged. There are also numerous cuts in the video footage, while the audio continues seamlessly over these cuts, in all three of the alleged transmissions.

It seems that every TV network, apart from ABC have lost the original live news coverage of that second broadcast, and the ABC News channel showed an edited version of that transmission in an alleged “live” broadcast. How the hell does that work? The “fact” that there is no unedited archive TV footage from the time of the event, and the fact that the bulk of the footage was never officially released to the public until after Sibrel released his DVD is very suspicious to say the least. Your flimsy debunking efforts only make sense to those within the realms of the NASA fan club, while the rest of us see it as pure BS.

Quote from: cambo

.....how can anyone be this gullible?

Quote from: JayUtah

Most of my sources for Apollo reference are contemporary. You are trying very hard to hide what is effectively an affirmative rebuttal. No matter what material is produced that contradicts your belief, your standard rebuttal -- made with no evidence -- is that it must somehow have been faked. Calling your critics gullible doesn't relieve you of the burden to prove an affirmative rebuttal.

Made with no evidence? What do you hope to gain by being dishonest? You may have some respect among your fellow cult members, but most people outside of your little club see you as a deceitful character who will distort the truth and make false accusations toward your opponents in an attempt to discredit them.

Why would anyone accept your challenge to debate with you, as they would be banging their heads against a brick wall? You and your friends will either ignore the evidence presented to you and instead, discredit the person making the claim, or simply wave it away with weak counterevidence and then claim victory on the grounds that you allegedly have the superior knowledge.

I’m only here to fill in my spare time, and to try and understand how people can be so easily blinded by science. This is incredulity of the highest order, as there is a mountain of evidence staring you in the face, but you put your fingers in your ears and look the other way. This has to be a form of mental illness you are all suffering from, as your way of thinking is completely alien to any rational thinking person. Try and imagine your emotions if the government and NASA were to come clean and admit the fraud. The very thought should terrify you, but I’m guessing that your brains are not wired for imaginative thinking.